This is something that I have been questioning for quite a while. Is it necessarily accurate in the English Gospels to say that St. John the "Baptist" actually Baptised people and Baptised Jesus? I know that many Protestants like to use this to support "Believers Baptism", but the reality is that Baptism as we know it did not even exist until after Jesus' Crucifixion. St. John's "Baptism" was actually just a Jewish mikvah--which was merely just a cleaning to attain ritual purity before entering the temple. Likewise, people got several mikvahs, whereas we only have ONE Baptism in Christ. Likewise, the purpose of Baptism is not to attain ritual purity like the mikvah, but to participate in Jesus' death so that we too could be resurrected and walk in the newness of like (Rom 6:4-5)--not to attain ritual purity. In reality, the only similarity between Baptism and the mikvah is that they both involve immersion. We shouldn't translate the Mikvah into Baptism because it is misleading, and I have no doubt that the majority Protestant translators behind the popular NIV translation purposely translated it as "Baptism" to try to discredit infant Baptism.

This is something that I have been questioning for quite a while. Is it necessarily accurate in the English Gospels to say that St. John the "Baptist" actually Baptised people and Baptised Jesus? I know that many Protestants like to use this to support "Believers Baptism", but the reality is that Baptism as we know it did not even exist until after Jesus' Crucifixion. St. John's "Baptism" was actually just a Jewish mikvah--which was merely just a cleaning to attain ritual purity before entering the temple. Likewise, people got several mikvahs, whereas we only have ONE Baptism in Christ. Likewise, the purpose of Baptism is not to attain ritual purity like the mikvah, but to participate in Jesus' death so that we too could be resurrected and walk in the newness of like (Rom 6:4-5)--not to attain ritual purity. In reality, the only similarity between Baptism and the mikvah is that they both involve immersion. We shouldn't translate the Mikvah into Baptism because it is misleading, and I have no doubt that the majority Protestant translators behind the popular NIV translation purposely translated it as "Baptism" to try to discredit infant Baptism.

Thoughts?

Hmm, in the Syriac tradition, we almost always call him "Mar Yuhannon Mamdana" or St. John the Baptist. So for me, he undoubtedly baptized Jesus.

Saying that St. John Baptised people before Jesus was crucified wouldn't make any sense at all, since Baptism is participating in His Crucifixion. How could we have participated in that before He was crucified? Likewise, how could Jesus Himself be "Baptised" before He was crucified and resurrected? Jesus doesn't need Baptism because He was going to be crucified and resurrected.

In Coptic, too, he is called Iwannyc piref]wmc, which is "John the Baptist". (According to Crum, "refti" is "baptize", "pi-" is the article...not sure where "oms" comes from; I guess it's some kind of nominalizer.)

Is it necessarily accurate in the English Gospels to say that St. John the "Baptist" actually Baptised people and Baptised Jesus?

His baptism wasn't the Spirit filled baptism into Christ that brings one into the Church, otherwise the disciple who knew John's baptism wouldn't have been rebaptized by apostles. John's batism was for the forgiveness of sins, and while Christian baptism is "for the remission of sins", it remits sins because of the uniting with in His death and resurrection, which John's baptism did not do.

Quote

I know that many Protestants like to use this to support "Believers Baptism",

How so? I don't see the connection, they would do better to use examples of Christian baptism from Acts.

As far as language goes, "baptize" means "to immerse". It's the word the gospels use to describe what John did. There is nothing wrong with calling him "the Baptist.

Saying that St. John Baptised people before Jesus was crucified wouldn't make any sense at all, since Baptism is participating in His Crucifixion. How could we have participated in that before He was crucified?

The same way the Apostles partook of the Bloodless Sacrifice prior to the Crucifixion?

Saying that St. John Baptised people before Jesus was crucified wouldn't make any sense at all, since Baptism is participating in His Crucifixion. How could we have participated in that before He was crucified?

Likewise, how could Jesus Himself be "Baptised" before He was crucified and resurrected? Jesus doesn't need Baptism because He was going to be crucified and resurrected.

During the blessing of the waters at Theophany our priest emphasizes that Christ's baptism by John was quite unlike John's baptism. With John's baptism of repentance the people were blessed, their sins being washed away- by the water. Christ's baptism was something entirely different. His baptism was not unto repentance, to wash away his sins, for he had none. Instead of being blessed by the waters, the waters were blessed by Jesus Christ.

He sanctified the waters, making them holy, preparing the way for our own holy baptism into His death:

"it is important to note that in Jesus’ baptism, the action of cleaning is reversed. Instead of being cleansed, Jesus Christ is one who cleanses. By His holiness, He purifies the waters that He enters. The waters are now restored to their cleansing and life-giving power. The Blessing of the Waters is a remembrance of the miraculous event of the sanctifying of the waters of creation. But this Orthodox service also extends its blessing in our time. In Christ and by the power of the Holy Spirit, the Church blesses the waters of earth that they may be a blessing to the Church, our homes, and the world." http://orthodoxway.tripod.com/id27.html

Mark the Evangelist mostly used the word Baptizer instead of Baptist. NET Bible has the following note:

While Matthew and Luke consistently use the noun βαπτίστης (baptisths, “[the] Baptist”) to refer to John, as a kind of a title, Mark prefers the substantival participle ὁ βαπτίζων (Jo baptizwn, “the one who baptizes, the baptizer”) to describe him (only twice does he use the noun [Mark 6:25; 8:28]). NET Bible Mark 1:4, footnote 9

James, you will find many cornerstones of Ukrainian, Russian or Rusyn Orthodox (and Greek Catholic as well) parishes dedicated to St. John in the American Midwest and northeast from the late 19th and early 20th century which read "Святого Иоанна Крестителя" or "Svjatoho Ioanna Krestitela"/ Saint John the Baptist. Those folks neither had Protestant English bible translations nor were they influenced by them. They simply named their churches as they had in Europe for centuries - prior to and after the Reformation.

19 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchiz′edek.

But this is in reference to Jesus. Do you know where else? Or would it be in the Greek OT?

Logged

Happy shall he be, that shall take and dash thy little ones against the rock. Alleluia.

Actually, it was only Matthew and Luke who preferred using the word Baptist as a title. Mark the Evangelist, however, mostly used the word "Baptizer". NET Bible has the following note on Mark 1:4

While Matthew and Luke consistently use the noun βαπτίστης (baptisths, “[the] Baptist”) to refer to John, as a kind of a title, Mark prefers the substantival participle ὁ βαπτίζων (Jo baptizwn, “the one who baptizes, the baptizer”) to describe him (only twice does he use the noun [Mark 6:25; 8:28]). (Footnote 9)

19 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchiz′edek.

But this is in reference to Jesus. Do you know where else? Or would it be in the Greek OT?

Malachi 3:1 Behold I send my angel (=messenger), and he shall prepare the way before my face.

Malachi 4:5 Behold I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.

Mark 17:10 And his disciples asked him, saying: Why then do the scribes say that Elias must come first? 11 But he answering, said to them: Elias indeed shall come, and restore all things. 12 But I say to you, that Elias is already come, and they knew him not, But have done unto him whatsoever they had a mind. So also the Son of man shall suffer from them. 13 Then the disciples understood, that he had spoken to them of John the Baptist.

There are lots of verses in the OT that speak of a messenger/angel hastily going before to announce the arrival of the Lord and prepare the way. Hence the title pro-dromos/prae-cursor, even if it doesn't appear as such in Scripture.

Icons of St. John depict him with wings - as an "angel in the flesh", because of his ascetic life, but maybe also to link him with the above mentioned prophecies.

19 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul, a hope that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, 20 where Jesus has gone as a forerunner on our behalf, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchiz′edek.

But this is in reference to Jesus. Do you know where else? Or would it be in the Greek OT?

A word search shows that forerunner does not occur in the Tanakh. In the New Testament Yeshua is called forerunner in Hebrews 6:20 in addition to Yuhannan Mamdana, who was identified as forerunner in Luke 1:17. It is highly likely that the title forerunner was derived by the Church from this particular verse in the Gospel of Luke.

Actually, it was only Matthew and Luke who preferred using the word Baptist as a title. Mark the Evangelist, however, mostly used the word "Baptizer". NET Bible has the following note on Mark 1:4

While Matthew and Luke consistently use the noun βαπτίστης (baptisths, “[the] Baptist”) to refer to John, as a kind of a title, Mark prefers the substantival participle ὁ βαπτίζων (Jo baptizwn, “the one who baptizes, the baptizer”) to describe him (only twice does he use the noun [Mark 6:25; 8:28]). (Footnote 9)

Fixed that for you.It's much more common to name males "Forerunner" (Πρόδρομος) than "Baptist" (Βαπτιστής), or to build a Church dedicated to "St. John the Forerunner"; in fact I don't think I've ever heard of any Greek male named "Baptist" (like they do in France, "Jean-Baptiste", or in Spain, "Juan Bautista/Batista")